The Supreme Court’s decision striking down Trump’s illegal tariffs was welcome, but hardly unexpected–and as Josh Marshall has reminded us at Talking Points Memo, hardly a sign that the Court has changed its corrupt ways.
For one thing, the tariffs were so transparently illegal it would have been incredibly difficult to save them (although three of the Court’s most incorrigible members tried.) As Marshall noted, there simply was no ambiguity in the law in question. He is absolutely correct when he says the decision wasn’t some big win. Granted, it’s certainly better to prevent a rogue president from continuing immensely harmful and blatantly illegal acts than permitting him to continue them. But it would be a mistake to view this decision as evidence that the Court is abandoning its substitution of political preferences for legal analyses.
This is a case where the legal merits of the President’s action were just too transparently bogus even for this Court to manage and — critically — his actions and the theories undergirding his claims to the power were, for the Corrupt majority, inconvenient. The architect of the current Court — the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo — was behind the litigation that undid the tariffs. That tells you all you need to know. In this case Trump’s claim to power was neither in the interests of the Republican Party — the Court’s chief jurisprudential interest — nor any of their anti-constitutional doctrines. So of course they tossed it out. This may sound ungenerous. It’s simple reality.
Actually–as Marshall also points out– the decision can be viewed as an indictment of the Court, which delayed issuing its decision for almost a year, and allowed the tariffs to upend whole sectors of the U.S. and global economies during that time. The Court allowed this president to exercise clearly illegal powers for almost a year, and it’s hard to disagree when Marshall says that “If the Constitution allows untrammeled and dictatorial powers for almost one year, massive dictator mulligans, then there is no Constitution.”
Part of the delay of this ruling is the fact that most major corporations were afraid to bring litigation because they didn’t want to go to war with the president. But that’s also an indictment of the Supreme Court’s corruption. Because they made clear early on that there was little, if any, limit they would impose on Trump’s criminality or use of government power to impose retribution on constitutionally protected speech or litigation. So that’s on the Court too. But it’s only part of the equation. The Court also allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the government appealed the appellate decision striking down the tariffs back in August. Let me repeat that: back in August, almost six months ago.
In other words, most of the time in which these illegal tariffs were in effect was because of that needless stay. The logic of the stay was that deference to President’s claim of illegal powers was more important than the harm created by hundreds of billions in unconstitutional taxes being imposed on American citizens. It’s a good example of what law professor Leah Litman — one of the most important voices on the Court’s corruption — earlier this morning called the Court’s corruption via “passivity,” empowering anti-constitutional actions through deciding not to act at all or encouraging endless delays it could easily put a stop to in the interests of the constitutional order.
The word “corruption” is harsh, but deserved.
Consider the Court’s increasing and unprecedented use of the so-called “Shadow Docket” to issue orders untethered to analysis. And that corruption hasn’t only been in service of the Justice’s political ideology. Investigations have uncovered copious evidence that both Alito and Thomas have accepted numerous, undisclosed luxury trips and gifts from billionaire donors with interests in pending court cases. ProPublica has reported on the numerous gifts Thomas has accepted from Harlan Crow, and on the trips Paul Singer gifted Alito.
The Separation of Powers prescribed by America’s Constitution requires three branches of government acting with integrity to preserve their separate prerogatives. The crisis we currently face is, in very large part, a result of a corrupt Supreme Court and a Congressional majority composed of cowards and eunuchs, branches that have ceded their constitutional authority to a bloated, lawless and increasingly lunatic executive.
When We the People retrieve our government from the MAGA fascists and neo-Nazis, reform of the Supreme Court should be one of the first orders of business.
I’ve had numerous arguments about the delay in scotus’s decision. There is absolutely no excuse that it lasted longer than two weeks. Due to our corrupt justices dragging this out, I thought they were trying to find a loophole or recommendation that Trump try an alternative route, etc. When it came back plain vanilla, I was shocked. Why did that decision by the majority court take so long?
Amy was worried about the “messiness of returning the tariffs collected,” yet scotus was 100% responsible for that messiness.
Btw, I am pretty sure that Paul Singer also owns Marco Rubio and was behind the illegal kidnapping of Maduro in Venezuela.
I don’t know if anybody caught #DementedDon’s social media post once the scotus decision came down against him, but it was almost illegible and incoherent. I simply cut and pasted it on my timeline, and even some conservatives were awestruck.
I did the same for another one of his posts that clearly demonstrates his cognitive decline, and a MAGA warrior asked me, “What’s the source?” Like the first post, it was literally an image of Trump’s post. LOL
I am pretty sure that if we antifas should rise up against the oppressive oligarchs and their owned politicians who’ve been stealing from the Treasury for decades, the MAGAs will stand up against us. Even though they hate the “deep state,” they haven’t a single clue what it means.
One of Donald Trump’s favorite tactics in business and now in government is a form of prolonged litigation. Apparently, members of the Supreme Court are on board with this too. And it works!
First he imposes tariffs of indefinite amounts on any and all countries in such a confusion manner as to keep one and all unsure what is going on. The money pours in. Various people and companies sue him. Their cases slowly make it through the web of stays and advancements until one case makes it to the Supreme Court. There the justices sit on it…and sit on it…and sit on it. When they do make a ruling against Trump he verbally attacks them and issues a new tariff using another contrived bit of legal reasoning. The original plaintiffs, other aggrieved companies and citizens ask for their money back. No plan for returning their money is given, so they sue. As their cases move ever so slowly along, the government keeps the money and collects new monies via the new tariffs, assured no doubt that any and all cases will move at a snail’s pace toward any resolution.
I think they call all this a “swindle”.
While I do feel that the monies collected illegally under these djt tariffs should be returned to the rightful owners – as loudly stated by Elizabeth Warren, among many others – it would most likely become a nightmare of epic proportions. The simple and easy way to do it would be to send each family a check – $1700 per Warren – but wouldn’t that leave out the biggest loser, the middle man, the brokers of all the deals responsible for paying for the tariffs, even though in the end, the buying public actually ends up paying for it. Hmmm, quite a mess indeed. The (intentional?) delay in ruling in this case allowed the whole thing to become the catastrophic mess that it is, and I agree with a first order of business after we antifas reclaim the government being that of SCOTUS reform.
Theresa,
Yes, Trump learned his legal prowess from Roy Cohn, another soundrel, which is why the importers are relying (hoping) that Congress takes action against Trump and helps them to reclaim their money; otherwise, Trump will drag his feet, and small businesses will have to sue again, which many cannot afford.
As for consumers, I don’t expect to see anything, because that would be an admission by Trump and his administration was lying to us from the very beginning – China didn’t pay for the tariffs.
Yes, Trump likes to “Lawyer” people to death, and it has worked well for him. Leonard Leo, and the Heritage Foundation are terrorists, imho.
When you have the chance, the very first thing you guys need to do is reform the filibuster. At least it should return to being the original, real person, “long talking” version. As long as it stays as it is, I doubt you’ll be able to accomplish anything to correct the many systemic problems Trump’s regime has exposed.
Once it’s fixed, at least you’ll have the chance to be a true democracy (or republic, if you prefer) again.
I know people (like Schumer and Jeffries) don’t like this idea because Republicans will have an easier time passing legislation, too. However, they are dead wrong. First, let them; let them pass terrible legislation and have their true colours be visible to the public. Second, I don’t think they will. They like for government not to work so they can convince everyone it’s horrible and can’t help them. Second, they won’t want to pass the really terrible things; some members will get cold feet and stuff will fail. And if stuff fails, this will have the added benefit of making Republicans specifically look incompetent.
Right now, people vote on social issues, feelings, and bigotries rather than on policy. If legislation can actually pass again, policy may start to look a lot more interesting to a lot more people.